clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Study Hall: Grizzlies top Spurs in Memphis

New, comments

The Grizzlies clamped down on defense and contested most of San Antonio's shots while the Spurs failed to do the same, resulting in some hot shooting by Memphis.

Justin Ford-USA TODAY Sports

Spurs at Grizzlies Dec 30, '14

Spurs 87, Grizzlies 95

Memphis took control of this one from early on and never relinquished it. It's the second time this season the Grizzlies have beaten the Spurs after nine straight losses. Both victories have featured a lot of Tayshaun Prince at power forward which is both a nice adjustment from Dave Joerger and something that probably isn't going to be an option in a potential playoffs series if Zach Randolph is healthy.

Four Factors (def.)

Spurs Grizzlies
Shooting (eFG%) 48% 54%
Ball Handling (TO%) 18% 21%
Off Rebounding (OR%) 24% 21%
Shooting FTs (FT Rate) 22% 31%

The Spurs did really well on two categories that have been problematic for them all season long: Turnovers and offensive rebounding. They had ample chances to rebound misses because there were many, as their eFG% shows. Ultimately, the Grizzlies efficient shooting and ability to get to the line were too much for the Spurs to handle.

Team Stats (Definitions at bottom of post)

Spurs
Grizzlies
Pace (No. of Possessions) 93.1
Points Per Possession (PPP) 0.93 1.02
Points Per Shot (PPS) 1.12 1.32
2-PT FG% 53.6% 49.1%
3-PT FG% 22.7% 46.7%
FT% 70.6% 81.8%
True Shooting % 50.9% 58.2%
Spurs
Grizzlies
Offensive Rating 95.1 100.3
Defensive Rating 100.3 95.1
Net Rating -5.2 5.2
Spurs Grizzlies
Passes / poss. 4.1 3.4
% of FGA uncontested 33.3% 48.6%
Points in the paint 44 40
Second chance points 10 10
Fast break points 3 13
Spurs Grizzlies
Assists 17 25
Steals 9 10
Turnovers 16 20
Ball Control Index (BCI)
(Assists + Steals) / TO
1.63 1.75
Spurs Grizzlies
Expected Offensive Rebounds 10.5 8.5
Offensive Rebounds 10 7
Difference -0.5 -1.5

TS%: Shooting was the difference in this one. The Grizzlies were good at it and the Spurs weren't. They shot worse on two-pointers, three-pointers and free throws, resulting in a big gap in points per possession. The Grizzlies' defense deserves credit, as it contested a lot more shots than the Spurs'.

Second chance points: San Antonio's inability to get easy points off offensive rebounds and on the break doomed them in a night in which even good looks weren't falling.

BCI: The Grizzlies turned the ball more but because they had more assists and more steals, they won the ball control battle.

Players (Definitions at bottom of post, columns sortable)

Spurs

Player
Min
AdjGS
GS/Min
Line
Usage%
Floor%
OffRtg
DefRtg
NetRtg
Cory Joseph 31 20.4 0.66 18 Pts (9-13 FG, 0-1 3PT, 0-1 FT) 3 Reb (3 Off), 3 Ast, 3 Stl, 4 TO, 3 PF 27% 54% 86.7 97.8 -11.2
Marco Belinelli 35 17.7 0.50 18 Pts (7-13 FG, 4-7 3PT ) 4 Reb (0 Off), 1 Ast, 1 Stl, 2 TO, 1 PF 20% 48% 93.2 105.1 -11.9
Tim Duncan 29 12.9 0.45 9 Pts (4-7 FG, 1-2 FT) 10 Reb (1 Off), 2 Ast, 1 Stl, 1 TO, 3 PF 15% 56% 87.5 101.5 -14.0
Patty Mills 18 9.6 0.54 10 Pts (3-10 FG, 0-4 3PT, 4-4 FT) 1 Reb (1 Off), 3 Ast, 1 PF 31% 54% 110.1 109.9 0.2
Manu Ginobili 27 6.2 0.23 6 Pts (2-7 FG, 0-2 3PT, 2-2 FT) 2 Reb (1 Off), 2 Ast, 1 Stl, 1 TO 16% 42% 96.0 106.7 -10.7
Tiago Splitter 13 5.8 0.46 6 Pts (2-5 FG, 2-4 FT) 4 Reb (1 Off), 1 Blk, 2 Stl, 2 TO, 2 PF 30% 35% 72.9 88.9 -16.0
Danny Green 24 5.5 0.23 7 Pts (3-11 FG, 1-6 3PT ) 3 Reb (1 Off), 3 Ast, 3 Blk, 1 Stl, 2 TO, 3 PF 25% 31% 96.9 91.2 5.7
Kyle Anderson 12 4.8 0.40 4 Pts (2-2 FG, ) , 1 Ast, 2 PF 9% 100% 120.7 101.2 19.6
Matt Bonner 19 4.4 0.22 2 Pts (1-2 FG, 0-1 3PT ) 3 Reb (1 Off), 1 Ast, 5% 61% 106.3 99.3 7.0
Jeff Ayres 13 2.6 0.20 2 Pts (1-1 FG, ) 3 Reb (0 Off), 2 PF 4% 100% 129.2 97.5 31.7
Austin Daye 3 1.5 0.52 2 Pts (1-2 FG, 0-1 3PT ) , 40% 52% 160.0 102.0 58.0
Aron Baynes 6 0.1 0.02 1 Pts (0-2 FG, 1-2 FT) 3 Reb (1 Off), 1 PF 19% 21% 58.9 100.9 -42.0
Boris Diaw 11 -4.5 -0.43 2 Pts (0-3 FG, 2-2 FT) 1 Reb (0 Off), 1 Ast, 4 TO 33% 18% 62.6 94.1 -31.5

Show Grizzlies Players

Cory Joseph continued his streak of good games, ranking first on the team in Adjusted Game Score. Marco Belinelli, who was the only Spur who could score from outside with any consistency, trailed him closely. Those two guys deserve credit for showing up ready to play but if they are the team's best performers against a good rival, the Spurs probably lose that game.

Boris Diaw was once again dreadful, logging a negative AdjGS while having a high usage and a low floor percentage in limited minutes. As Rick mentioned, Pop didn't play him in the second half. It's still too early to seriously worry too much about him but his inconsistency is a problem.

As for the Grizzlies (click on "show Grizzlies players" to see the chart), Mike Conley was as phenomenal as his basic stats suggest. Marc Gasol and Tayshaun Prince flanked him and that triumvirate proved to be too much to handle for a Spurs team that went deep into its rotation trying to find an answer.

Spurs Index: 90.5 (def.)

Factor Value Score
Passing (AST%) 48.6% 23.5
Shooting (eFG%) 48.1% 17.9
Defensive Rebounding (DReb%) 79.4% 20.8
Defense (DefRtg) 100.3 20.0
Opponent % of FGA Uncontested 48.6% 8.4
Total 90.5

Grizzlies Spurs Index: 107.7 Show Breakdown

It was not a Spurs-y game at all for San Antonio. The multiple misses from outside really hurt the team's assist percentage and the Grizzlies got plenty of open shots that they canned. As Memphis' score in the Spurs Index shows, the team moving the ball and contesting shots wasn't the Spurs. Hopefully the good guys get back on track on Wednesday at home against the Pelicans.

Hang in there, Spurs fans. December is almost over.

Hat tip to Brett Jones for compiling the stats.

---

Definitions

eFG%: Effective Field Goal percentage. (via) Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal. For example, suppose Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from field goals, and thus would have the same effective field goal percentage (50%).

AdjGS: a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It takes points, assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls into account to determine an individual's "score" for a given game. The "adjustment" in Adjusted Game Score is simply matching the total game scores to the total points scored in the game, thereby redistributing the game's points scored to those who had the biggest impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.

Usage%: This "estimates the % of team possessions a player consumes while on the floor" (via). The usage of those possessions is determined via a formula using field goal and free throw attempts, offensive rebounds, assists and turnovers. The higher the number, the more prevalent a player is (good or bad) in a team's offensive outcome.

Floor%: Via Basketball-Reference.com: Floor % answers the question, "when Player X uses a possession, what is the probability that his team scores at least 1 point?". The higher the Floor%, the more frequently the team probably scores when the given player is involved.

Offensive Rating (offRtg): Points per 100 possessions.

Defensive Rating (defRtg): Points allowed per 100 possessions.

Spurs Index: The Spurs Index © is a just-for-fun formula that attempts to quantify just how "Spursy" a particular game is, based off averages for the 2013-2014 regular season. A perfectly average game would have a Spurs Index of 100. The formula consists of four factors which the Spurs are known for and lead or nearly lead the league in: Shooting (effective Field Goal %), Passing (Assist percentage), Defensive Rebounding Rate, and Defensive Rating. These metrics are weighted as follows:

Factor Weight Average
Passing (AST%) 30% 62.1%
Shooting (eFG%) 20% 53.7%
Defensive Rebounding (DReb%) 20% 76.4%
Defense (DefRtg) 20% 100.1
Opponent % of FGA Uncontested 10% 40.8%
The values for each metric are determined based on how a particular game's performance compares to the Spurs 2013-2014 regular season average for that metric. For instance, the average effective Field Goal percentage for 2013-2014 was 53.7%. So if the Spurs shot 60% in a given game, the score for eFG% would be calculated by: (0.6 / 0.537) * 20, which would yield a "score" for that factor of 22.3.

Special thanks to: